Crotchrocket Slim:BolshyGreatYarblocks: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I wonder how many conspiracy theorists who want it to be true that the gub'mint is spying on everyone are going to look at that "The Department of Defense does not conduct electronic or physical surveillance of journalists" and go "Oh yeah? I don't believe you! So prove it!"

The US government announced after 9/11 that it would endeavor to monitor all US phone calls and email transmissions. But you're right: the US government is not spying on US citizens.

The NSA was already doing this for years before 9/11, the government finally fessed up basically. Thing is we're talking about billions of phone calls and emails a day, it's impossible to have someone monitoring every single one of these.

That's why scanbots do it. I'm worried about the phone or Net equivalent of a "Hi, Jack!" scenario, or someone like a future Pinochet or D'Aubisson listening in. As for people volunteering info, there's a difference between people posting drunk or nude photos of themselves, and Google spreading info about you from your Gmail account, or Facebook hacking and selling your email data.

BolshyGreatYarblocks:Crotchrocket Slim: BolshyGreatYarblocks: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I wonder how many conspiracy theorists who want it to be true that the gub'mint is spying on everyone are going to look at that "The Department of Defense does not conduct electronic or physical surveillance of journalists" and go "Oh yeah? I don't believe you! So prove it!"

The US government announced after 9/11 that it would endeavor to monitor all US phone calls and email transmissions. But you're right: the US government is not spying on US citizens.

The NSA was already doing this for years before 9/11, the government finally fessed up basically. Thing is we're talking about billions of phone calls and emails a day, it's impossible to have someone monitoring every single one of these.

That's why scanbots do it. I'm worried about the phone or Net equivalent of a "Hi, Jack!" scenario, or someone like a future Pinochet or D'Aubisson listening in. As for people volunteering info, there's a difference between people posting drunk or nude photos of themselves, and Google spreading info about you from your Gmail account, or Facebook hacking and selling your email data.

Coulda woulda shoulda We have a Constitution meant specifically to limit the power of all levels of government to prevent this sort of thing, and of course it's incumbent on all of us to watch what our governments are doing and to keep people like Pinochet from ever achieving power. That "government of, for, and by the people" isn't one you can let run on autopilot. Worst case doomsday scenarios and pissing oneself about how things could be abused doesn't do anyone any good save for whoever you're buying anti-anxiety medications from.

Basily Gourt:Do you want to be the president who has to go on tv and explain to the american people that we could have prevented that nuclear explosion in downtown (fill in the blank), but we didn't want to violate anybody's right to privacy?

A president willing to put the constitution above authority? Absolutely. He'd have my vote for as long as he wanted it.

If crazies and be crazy and kill people, they're gonna do it. You can't stop them. You can, however, try to live in the same world as them without a microphone on your bedside table, and a spook browsing a list of intercepted text messages for keywords.

Just another Heartland Weirdass:Bacontastesgood: Just how far up their own ass are journalists to think that the Pentagon has time and people to waste spying on them?

Or are they just retarded and couldn't parse "monitor national media reporting" to mean, you know, watching TV and reading the news to see if classified stuff is in there.

Yeah, as if the govt would EVER squander resources, waste time, persue false leads, harass, or intimidate anyone. Or concern itself with anything that wasn't the number one problem in the whole world.

False leads and arrests happened before the advent of such monitoring; the technology is far from perfect which is why law enforcement types only use this as a tool to further conduct investigations and rarely act upon electronic intelligence alone. If nothing else (especially as the technology improves) this had lead to fewer false arrests.

Crotchrocket Slim:Just another Heartland Weirdass: Bacontastesgood: Just how far up their own ass are journalists to think that the Pentagon has time and people to waste spying on them?

Or are they just retarded and couldn't parse "monitor national media reporting" to mean, you know, watching TV and reading the news to see if classified stuff is in there.

Yeah, as if the govt would EVER squander resources, waste time, persue false leads, harass, or intimidate anyone. Or concern itself with anything that wasn't the number one problem in the whole world.

False leads and arrests happened before the advent of such monitoring; the technology is far from perfect which is why law enforcement types only use this as a tool to further conduct investigations and rarely act upon electronic intelligence alone. If nothing else (especially as the technology improves) this had lead to fewer false arrests.

Double check me here if you must, but my post did not contain the phrase "false arrests." The closest thing to that was "pursue false leads." Big difference. Also you seem to have misconstrued "the government" as "law enforcement."

I was not addressing honest mistakes based on assuming electronic evidence was reliable in isolation. I'd say you straw manned me, but I kinda think you honestly misread me.

My post was about how the ubiquitous data mining by the govt can and has been used for nefarious purposes. Do you seriously deny this?

Just another Heartland Weirdass:Crotchrocket Slim: Just another Heartland Weirdass: Bacontastesgood: Just how far up their own ass are journalists to think that the Pentagon has time and people to waste spying on them?

Or are they just retarded and couldn't parse "monitor national media reporting" to mean, you know, watching TV and reading the news to see if classified stuff is in there.

Yeah, as if the govt would EVER squander resources, waste time, persue false leads, harass, or intimidate anyone. Or concern itself with anything that wasn't the number one problem in the whole world.

False leads and arrests happened before the advent of such monitoring; the technology is far from perfect which is why law enforcement types only use this as a tool to further conduct investigations and rarely act upon electronic intelligence alone. If nothing else (especially as the technology improves) this had lead to fewer false arrests.

Double check me here if you must, but my post did not contain the phrase "false arrests." The closest thing to that was "pursue false leads." Big difference. Also you seem to have misconstrued "the government" as "law enforcement."

I was not addressing honest mistakes based on assuming electronic evidence was reliable in isolation. I'd say you straw manned me, but I kinda think you honestly misread me.

My post was about how the ubiquitous data mining by the govt can and has been used for nefarious purposes. Do you seriously deny this?

No I don't, but just because misconduct occurs doesn't mean we toss about the baby with the bathwater, we just prosecute misconduct.

Lost Thought 00:Why do you think Apple put a forward facing camera into every iPhone?

Skype?Video conferencing?

The real question is, even though we have so many stories of hacking, how come all laptops come with cameras that don't have any physical sliding mechanism that blocks the camera?How come no one sued the manufacturers when people have been recorded at home?

Oh, and if you want real derp: enjoy the convenience of fingerprint password technology.

The real question is, even though we have so many stories of hacking, how come all laptops come with cameras that don't have any physical sliding mechanism that blocks the camera?How come no one sued the manufacturers when people have been recorded at home?

Oh, and if you want real derp: enjoy the convenience of fingerprint password technology.

/aluminum hats, they go with everything

Funny you mention that particular biometric technology as I just watched an old Mentalist rerun where some dude's finger gets sliced off (after he is killed) to get into a safe unlocked by fingerprint. A very tertiary reason I prefer passwords to ever enabling that feature on equipment I own (that and I'm damn good at maintaining password security at this point).

Crotchrocket Slim:Funny you mention that particular biometric technology as I just watched an old Mentalist rerun where some dude's finger gets sliced off (after he is killed) to get into a safe unlocked by fingerprint. A very tertiary reason I prefer passwords to ever enabling that feature on equipment I own (that and I'm damn good at maintaining password security at this point).

Don't worry, movies aren't like real life. The cheap ones, maybe, but the good ones require more than just a finger print pattern to unlock which only occurs with a live finger.

Crotchrocket Slim:BolshyGreatYarblocks: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I wonder how many conspiracy theorists who want it to be true that the gub'mint is spying on everyone are going to look at that "The Department of Defense does not conduct electronic or physical surveillance of journalists" and go "Oh yeah? I don't believe you! So prove it!"

The US government announced after 9/11 that it would endeavor to monitor all US phone calls and email transmissions. But you're right: the US government is not spying on US citizens.

The NSA was already doing this for years before 9/11, the government finally fessed up basically. Thing is we're talking about billions of phone calls and emails a day, it's impossible to have someone monitoring every single one of these.

Best I can figure is it's just a symptom of the general anti-intellectualism in this country, kind of like how all the intentional misspellings in product names and logos is "cool". ('Oooo, I know, we'll take the "s" at the end of our name and replace it with a "z"! That would be like TOTALLY X-Treme!').

The ongoing trend of people becoming incapable of speaking or writing whole words in their efforts to be "cool" irritates the heck out of me...

/While I'm at it, when the heck did every single soldier become a "troop"? //Dang kids get off my lawn, etc.

sseye:Crotchrocket Slim: BolshyGreatYarblocks: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I wonder how many conspiracy theorists who want it to be true that the gub'mint is spying on everyone are going to look at that "The Department of Defense does not conduct electronic or physical surveillance of journalists" and go "Oh yeah? I don't believe you! So prove it!"

The US government announced after 9/11 that it would endeavor to monitor all US phone calls and email transmissions. But you're right: the US government is not spying on US citizens.

The NSA was already doing this for years before 9/11, the government finally fessed up basically. Thing is we're talking about billions of phone calls and emails a day, it's impossible to have someone monitoring every single one of these.

THats what the computers are for, dummy.

...

Ever since this program started it's always been computers scanning telephone calls and later email for key words etc. You trying to sound "smart" now? You kinda failed.

WhoGAS:Crotchrocket Slim: Funny you mention that particular biometric technology as I just watched an old Mentalist rerun where some dude's finger gets sliced off (after he is killed) to get into a safe unlocked by fingerprint. A very tertiary reason I prefer passwords to ever enabling that feature on equipment I own (that and I'm damn good at maintaining password security at this point).

Don't worry, movies aren't like real life. The cheap ones, maybe, but the good ones require more than just a finger print pattern to unlock which only occurs with a live finger.

I've always wondered if there was a way to replicate the weak live charge of a living human body (isn't that what these scanners also look for?).